Comments on: Corporate America’s Green Masqueradehttp://dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/
a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justiceSat, 27 Sep 2014 17:28:19 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.1By: Katie McKennahttp://dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-1044
Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:17:45 +0000http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-1044What Mr. St. Clair points out here resonates so deeply with me. As of late, I’ve been so frustrated by the green movement’s emphasis on individual responsibility without pointing out the necessity of governmental regulations. There is absolutely no way that individual efforts will make an impact without the coupling of an environmentally-minded citizenry with an equally supportive, environmentally-minded government. While certainly grassroots revolutions can be and have been successful, the most successful of those in recent history have shared the element of eventual governmental commitment to cause. While we have congresspersons and senators here and there paying lip service to genuinely positive environmental goals, a very small number of these members of our political machine are willing to go out on a limb for the interest groups they work to appease.
While the drive for individuals to be more green-minded is certainly a worthy goal, these efforts are marginalized and perhaps even thwarted by the larger institutions at work in this country. And while I’m glad to do my part in being a global eco-citizen, I didn’t know you had to be told to turn off the light when you are done with it, or to avoid using plastic bags when not necessary. Individual intervention is a band-aid for a cancer that only government can cure.
]]>By: atheohttp://dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-868
Thu, 31 May 2007 03:17:52 +0000http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-868Good points David, it’s ironic that we are attempting to releive environmental problems with nuclear power, ethanol, and mercury laden CFL light bulbs. The suggestion for aforestation has already been questioned as counterproductive. I don’t see renewables getting much farther along from this climate of crisis.
]]>By: David Alan Smithhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-864
Thu, 31 May 2007 01:19:25 +0000http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-864One aspect of the formulation of the problem as “global warming” is that the resultant solutions tend to be global and technocratic as well. We hear of ocean seeding projects, ecosystem management plans and other “global responses” like the Kyoto Protocols. As if it weren’t our over dependence on technological solutions and (mis)management of ecosystems we don’t and can’t understand in all their complexity that got us into this trouble in the first place.
The only path out is to end our infatuation with growth and give up the values that put accumulation, wealth and profit ahead of all else.
]]>By: atheohttp://dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-861
Thu, 31 May 2007 00:57:23 +0000http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-861In case anyone would like to be aware of Cockburn’s stance:

…The greenhousers endlessly propose that the consensus of “scientists” on anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. By scientists they actually mean computer modelers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their computer-modeling coterie include very few real climatologists or atmospheric physicists. Among qualified climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, there are plenty who do not accept the greenhousers’ propositions. Many others have been intimidated into silence by the pressures of grants, tenure and kindred academic garottes.

Peer review, heavily overworked in the rebuttals I have been reading, is actually a topic on which the greenhousers would do well to keep their mouths shut, since, as the University of Virginia’s Pat Michaels has shown, the most notorious sentence in the IPCC’s 1996 report (“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”) was inserted at the last minute by a small faction on the IPCC panel after the scientific peer-review process was complete…

]]>By: bob olsenhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-852
Wed, 30 May 2007 22:32:42 +0000http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/corporate-america%e2%80%99s-green-masquerade/#comment-852I think Mr. St. Clair is getting close to the point but he’s not quite willing to say it.Nothing about humans in the 21st century is sustainable.Six and a half billion people-no matter what we do-can not be sustained by the resources on this planet.The only thing we can do is radically and quickly reduce our numbers.How we can do that ethically is the question of the age(if it’s even possible).But not to worry-if we don’t do it then the planet will.Remember,this is the sixth great extinction that we know of and life has bounced back every time.Start being nice to the cockroaches in your kitchen-their next.
]]>